Equality of Opportunities -- Meritocracy?
Meritocracy's strength lies in the fact that it recognizes only merit and is blind to gender, race, family wealth and connections, etc. In a nutshell, under meritocracy, the job goes to the best man with the requisite skills. In that sense, it is seen as fair, but only if everyone is on the same starting line to begin with.
Meritocracy has benefited Singapore in the past, as evidenced by the fact that most people from poor family backgrounds in the past have managed to rise to middle or even upper income level today, i.e. rags to riches. But today, a different scenario is gradually playing out: those who managed to reach the top pass on their advantages to their children, while those at the bottom are unable to do so. The result is that the poor are more likely to be trapped at the bottom while the rich continue to stay at the top -- social mobility is thus reduced. See explanation for this in the article. A useful stats to remember to show this: 6 out of 10 students from top pri and sec schs live in private property
Hence, there are two sides to meritocracy. It can allow the poor to have a chance to rise to the top (as it recognises only merit), but at the same time, it can also trap the poor at the bottom, penalizing the poor for not having access to the resources that those from the rich do. The poor can thus work very hard and put in a lot of effort, but they are still less likely to succeed compared to the rich, through no fault of their own.
Affirmative actions from the govt are thus necessary to level the playing field, and you want to know that the Singapore govt has pledged to commit S$3 billion to quality pre-school education for the poor over the next five years, as announced in the Budget early this year. Note that such affirmative actions are seen as positive discrimination and are considered desirable.
Note also the end of the article where it is mentioned that we cannot allow 1% of the population to be successful while the remaining 99% are disenfranchised and left feeling unhappy and unfairly treated. Our widening income gap (indicated by S'pore's Ginni coefficient of about 0.458) shows that we are heading in that direction gradually if we are not careful. Not doing anything to mitigate this can only lead to chaos and social instability, as seen in the culmination of the Arab Spring, where the frustrated and disenfranchised poor who are fed-up with the govt decided to overthrow the govt.
See HERE for more on meritocracy.
Sample Qns:
1) Poor people have only themselves to blame for their problems. Comment.
2) In your society, how far is equality for all a reality? (Cambridge 2012)
3) There is no place for discrimination in the world today. Do you agree?
Meritocracy has benefited Singapore in the past, as evidenced by the fact that most people from poor family backgrounds in the past have managed to rise to middle or even upper income level today, i.e. rags to riches. But today, a different scenario is gradually playing out: those who managed to reach the top pass on their advantages to their children, while those at the bottom are unable to do so. The result is that the poor are more likely to be trapped at the bottom while the rich continue to stay at the top -- social mobility is thus reduced. See explanation for this in the article. A useful stats to remember to show this: 6 out of 10 students from top pri and sec schs live in private property
Hence, there are two sides to meritocracy. It can allow the poor to have a chance to rise to the top (as it recognises only merit), but at the same time, it can also trap the poor at the bottom, penalizing the poor for not having access to the resources that those from the rich do. The poor can thus work very hard and put in a lot of effort, but they are still less likely to succeed compared to the rich, through no fault of their own.
Affirmative actions from the govt are thus necessary to level the playing field, and you want to know that the Singapore govt has pledged to commit S$3 billion to quality pre-school education for the poor over the next five years, as announced in the Budget early this year. Note that such affirmative actions are seen as positive discrimination and are considered desirable.
Note also the end of the article where it is mentioned that we cannot allow 1% of the population to be successful while the remaining 99% are disenfranchised and left feeling unhappy and unfairly treated. Our widening income gap (indicated by S'pore's Ginni coefficient of about 0.458) shows that we are heading in that direction gradually if we are not careful. Not doing anything to mitigate this can only lead to chaos and social instability, as seen in the culmination of the Arab Spring, where the frustrated and disenfranchised poor who are fed-up with the govt decided to overthrow the govt.
See HERE for more on meritocracy.
Sample Qns:
1) Poor people have only themselves to blame for their problems. Comment.
2) In your society, how far is equality for all a reality? (Cambridge 2012)
3) There is no place for discrimination in the world today. Do you agree?
 |
| article 1a |
 |
| article 1b |
 |
| article 1c |
 |
| article 1d |
 |
| article 1e |
posted by Dark Shadow | 9:33 PM
<< Home